Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

OP posts:
Sharptonguedwoman · 30/07/2024 12:45

GoodnightAdeline · 30/07/2024 12:40

What do I have ‘no clue’ about? The stats speak for themselves, I think we all know women in previous years are much less likely to have paid 45 years of unbroken tax.

Yes but it's complicated. It's not as simple as women sitting at home for years. I don't have 45 years of NI contributions as I and others, though were were paid up to the max, long gone. It was only when I came to check at state pensionable age that I realised the goalposts had moved so fundamentally and I had a few missing years from 62-66. I simply didn't know and people I spoke to, didn't either.
Also, what stats? Can you quote? Years out of the labour force? Many women are long term carers for children/the disabled and the elderly. I did look at the recent stats for those.

GoodnightAdeline · 30/07/2024 12:41

BIossomtoes · 30/07/2024 12:00

It could have gone a lot further if they wanted intergenerational financial equalisation - removing the triple lock for a start. And the £10 “Christmas bonus” which would have saved another £110 million. I’m already pissed off with them for not removing the two child benefit cap.

The fact is pensioners are the wealthiest demographic and even then they’re not removing the fuel payment from the most vulnerable. If we aren’t going to end what is for many a totally needless and luxury concession then how DO you think we should funds things that desperately need it?

OP posts:
GoodnightAdeline · 30/07/2024 12:41

Sharptonguedwoman · 30/07/2024 12:40

Jobs/careers doesn't matter. Women went back to work.

Blossomtoes was the one who said it mattered

OP posts:
GoodnightAdeline · 30/07/2024 12:40

Sharptonguedwoman · 30/07/2024 12:39

Those people are my age and you clearly have absolutely no clue. I don't have a 'full working history' either some some bugger changed the rules about women when it was too late for me to retrain and I am now disabled. Yes, women work part time but many go back full time.

What do I have ‘no clue’ about? The stats speak for themselves, I think we all know women in previous years are much less likely to have paid 45 years of unbroken tax.

OP posts:
Sharptonguedwoman · 30/07/2024 12:40

GoodnightAdeline · 30/07/2024 09:52

How many people do you think have careers versus those with jobs in society?

Jobs/careers doesn't matter. Women went back to work.

Sharptonguedwoman · 30/07/2024 12:39

GoodnightAdeline · 30/07/2024 08:55

Very few women I know in their 60s have a ‘full’ working history of tax paying. Most sacked off work when they had children, then went back very part time years later.

Those people are my age and you clearly have absolutely no clue. I don't have a 'full working history' either some some bugger changed the rules about women when it was too late for me to retrain and I am now disabled. Yes, women work part time but many go back full time.

BIossomtoes · 30/07/2024 12:00

GoodnightAdeline · 30/07/2024 11:55

But surely you acknowledge there is no 1 thing the government can do to plug such a large gap and it will be made up of smaller things? This policy is doing extremely well in the circles I move in (early 30s).

It could have gone a lot further if they wanted intergenerational financial equalisation - removing the triple lock for a start. And the £10 “Christmas bonus” which would have saved another £110 million. I’m already pissed off with them for not removing the two child benefit cap.

GoodnightAdeline · 30/07/2024 11:55

BIossomtoes · 30/07/2024 10:58

What’s happening here is the government taking a relatively small amount from some pensioners to fill a corner of a huge budget deficit. The government has pledged (wrongly in my view) to retain the triple lock, this is an economic decision not an ideological one. There are people of all ages living in “mould infested hellholes” and £800k houses. Framing this as some kind of Robin Hood political gesture is just plain wrong, if the government’s intention was as you interpret it’s not doing very well.

But surely you acknowledge there is no 1 thing the government can do to plug such a large gap and it will be made up of smaller things? This policy is doing extremely well in the circles I move in (early 30s).

OP posts:
FictionalCharacter · 30/07/2024 11:36

Meadowfinch · 08/04/2024 17:15

For 7 months of the last year, RPI was above 8%, peaking at 13% in March 23. In the last five months it has come down below 8%. So an 8% rise does slightly less than maintain the status quo.

Pensioners cannot go for promotion, they cannot move job, they cannot work extra hours, they have no future financial prospects, so are totally reliant on pension income.

I have no issue with the rise at all. I don't want old people freezing to death or going hungry.

No, I'm not a pensioner, not for a long time yet.

Edited

This - and you'll be a pensioner one day too OP.

BIossomtoes · 30/07/2024 11:00

I have no idea how old you are.

Maybe receive more and transmit less then. I told you my age several posts ago.

BIossomtoes · 30/07/2024 10:58

GoodnightAdeline · 30/07/2024 10:53

What’s happening here is the government are trying to iron out the massive discrepancy between people in their later years now, and younger people. To put it simply elderly people are far less likely to be in poverty than younger people and especially children, so it’s their turn to take the hit to distribute things a bit more equally. Nobody in a 800k house should receive fuel allowance when small children are living in mould infested hellholes because their parents are skint

What’s happening here is the government taking a relatively small amount from some pensioners to fill a corner of a huge budget deficit. The government has pledged (wrongly in my view) to retain the triple lock, this is an economic decision not an ideological one. There are people of all ages living in “mould infested hellholes” and £800k houses. Framing this as some kind of Robin Hood political gesture is just plain wrong, if the government’s intention was as you interpret it’s not doing very well.

GoodnightAdeline · 30/07/2024 10:53

BIossomtoes · 30/07/2024 10:52

Thanks for proving my point so excellently. Most of those women of working age in the 1970s were my mother’s generation, not mine. You may also wish to acknowledge @Rosscameasdoody’s point that it was my generation that fought for the changes in employment legislation that make it possible for your generation to work - although, as you point out, 25% still don’t.

I was talking about my mother in law, not you, I have no idea how old you are. I accept that but then every generation does something to improve the landscape, millennials are at the forefront of the climate movement.

OP posts:
GoodnightAdeline · 30/07/2024 10:53

What’s happening here is the government are trying to iron out the massive discrepancy between people in their later years now, and younger people. To put it simply elderly people are far less likely to be in poverty than younger people and especially children, so it’s their turn to take the hit to distribute things a bit more equally. Nobody in a 800k house should receive fuel allowance when small children are living in mould infested hellholes because their parents are skint

OP posts:
ShyMaryEllen · 30/07/2024 10:52

My mum (in her 80s) talks about having worked all her life too, but that's because she counts looking after her own house and children as work, which she believes it was. She doesn't see how annoying that is when she says it to her daughters who have all brought up children, run houses and worked full time throughout. She focuses on how much easier it was for us, as we had automatic washing machines.

I don't remember anyone in my mum's circle working when I was growing up. Maybe that's because if they'd been working I wouldn't have known them as they wouldn't have been at coffee mornings etc, but none of them worked. I only know one person of my generation who gave up work when she had children. Everyone else worked, even if some had a couple of years at home with babies.

To be fair though, in both cases people just did what was normal in their time and circumstances and it's probably not fair to blame them retrospectively for that. There were no nurseries or crèches for my mum's generation, so working mums would have had a much harder time if they didn't have family willing to do the childcare, and in any case they were paid less than men, had no maternity leave and so on, so it probably didn't seem worth it. Also, the system then was that women got their husband's pension if he predeceased them, and there were things like married man's tax allowance - things were different, and nobody can predict the direction things will take decades later. We all just make the best of life as we live it, really.

BIossomtoes · 30/07/2024 10:52

GoodnightAdeline · 30/07/2024 10:43

https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/timeseries/lf25/lms

Around half of working age women in the 1970s had a job compared with three quarters now. I appreciate the reasons for not working back then were more complex (lack of childcare settings, etc) but I’m pointing out a woman born in 1948 will have worked, on average, far fewer years than a woman born in 1985.

Thanks for proving my point so excellently. Most of those women of working age in the 1970s were my mother’s generation, not mine. You may also wish to acknowledge @Rosscameasdoody’s point that it was my generation that fought for the changes in employment legislation that make it possible for your generation to work - although, as you point out, 25% still don’t.

GoodnightAdeline · 30/07/2024 10:51

Rosscameasdoody · 30/07/2024 10:44

That would be because in those days there was no maternity pay - something which boomers fought for and from which subsequent generations have benefited. There was no such thing as wrap around child care either. So ‘sacking off work’ as you so politely put it was pretty much the only option unless you had family who could do childcare.

But it’s ironic because people like my MIL blame society’s ills on people ‘having children they can’t afford’ OR ‘leaving them to be raised by nursery’

It WAS easier for a couple to manage on 1 salary hence why being a SAHM was more common

OP posts:
Rosscameasdoody · 30/07/2024 10:44

GoodnightAdeline · 30/07/2024 08:55

Very few women I know in their 60s have a ‘full’ working history of tax paying. Most sacked off work when they had children, then went back very part time years later.

That would be because in those days there was no maternity pay - something which boomers fought for and from which subsequent generations have benefited. There was no such thing as wrap around child care either. So ‘sacking off work’ as you so politely put it was pretty much the only option unless you had family who could do childcare.

GoodnightAdeline · 30/07/2024 10:43

BIossomtoes · 30/07/2024 10:40

Most women of my generation do. Your mother in law is an exception. I personally don’t know any women who didn’t work and pay tax for the majority of their life. And I venture to suggest that, as a member of that generation, my sample is likely to be rather larger than yours.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/timeseries/lf25/lms

Around half of working age women in the 1970s had a job compared with three quarters now. I appreciate the reasons for not working back then were more complex (lack of childcare settings, etc) but I’m pointing out a woman born in 1948 will have worked, on average, far fewer years than a woman born in 1985.

Female employment rate (aged 16 to 64, seasonally adjusted): % - Office for National Statistics

https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/timeseries/lf25/lms

OP posts:
GoodnightAdeline · 30/07/2024 10:41

GoodnightAdeline · 30/07/2024 10:39

She is obsessed with the war. She thinks I’m a traitor and a ‘lefty loon’ because I didn’t want to sing God Save The Queen with her at the Platinum jubilee.

Not saying all women/people of that generation think the same as my MIL, but just saying you got her spot on!

OP posts:
BIossomtoes · 30/07/2024 10:40

GoodnightAdeline · 30/07/2024 10:09

Yes but I’m pointing out most women of the generation we refer to do not have a full record of unbroken income tax paying like they suggest. My mother in law says she ‘worked all her life’ when complaining about immigrants but when you add it up, she worked the equivalent of about 20 full time years, certainly no more.

Most women of my generation do. Your mother in law is an exception. I personally don’t know any women who didn’t work and pay tax for the majority of their life. And I venture to suggest that, as a member of that generation, my sample is likely to be rather larger than yours.

GoodnightAdeline · 30/07/2024 10:39

Everanewbie · 30/07/2024 10:16

I am not critising your mum, but that generation seem to always go on about the war as if it were them storming the beaches of Normandy, being a reason why they deserve a great deal now while young people struggle. The people in their late 60s and 70s, even 80s now didn't see the bloody war, let alone fight in it.

She is obsessed with the war. She thinks I’m a traitor and a ‘lefty loon’ because I didn’t want to sing God Save The Queen with her at the Platinum jubilee.

OP posts:
Everanewbie · 30/07/2024 10:16

GoodnightAdeline · 30/07/2024 10:09

Yes but I’m pointing out most women of the generation we refer to do not have a full record of unbroken income tax paying like they suggest. My mother in law says she ‘worked all her life’ when complaining about immigrants but when you add it up, she worked the equivalent of about 20 full time years, certainly no more.

I am not critising your mum, but that generation seem to always go on about the war as if it were them storming the beaches of Normandy, being a reason why they deserve a great deal now while young people struggle. The people in their late 60s and 70s, even 80s now didn't see the bloody war, let alone fight in it.

GoodnightAdeline · 30/07/2024 10:09

BIossomtoes · 30/07/2024 09:57

How is that relevant? Most women work and have for the last 50 years.

Yes but I’m pointing out most women of the generation we refer to do not have a full record of unbroken income tax paying like they suggest. My mother in law says she ‘worked all her life’ when complaining about immigrants but when you add it up, she worked the equivalent of about 20 full time years, certainly no more.

OP posts:
BIossomtoes · 30/07/2024 09:57

GoodnightAdeline · 30/07/2024 09:52

How many people do you think have careers versus those with jobs in society?

How is that relevant? Most women work and have for the last 50 years.

GoodnightAdeline · 30/07/2024 09:52

BIossomtoes · 30/07/2024 09:49

You clearly don’t know many single parents then. Or women with careers, not jobs. You’re talking about our mothers’ generation, not ours. I’m 71 next week and paid tax from the time I was 16 until now. Of those years 20 were as a higher rate taxpayer. All my friends had careers and a similar tax paying history. We’ll all be paying income tax until we’re fitted for our coffins.

Edited

How many people do you think have careers versus those with jobs in society?

OP posts:
Swipe left for the next trending thread